Now that would be an obvious solution. Of course being rail would make manuevering freely a bit tricky.
Civil War Tanks?
- Thread starter Prime Minister
- Start date
Now that would be an obvious solution. Of course being rail would make manuevering freely a bit tricky.
Even if you could build a prototype...
...getting it over bridges or even across roads would be very difficult given the infrastructure of the time. It would also be a resource hog for the Confederacy given they had only a few sources of steel at the time. Also that's a stretch to build it, though if it could be done it would be a nice museum piece and fodder for "what if"
...getting it over bridges or even across roads would be very difficult given the infrastructure of the time. It would also be a resource hog for the Confederacy given they had only a few sources of steel at the time. Also that's a stretch to build it, though if it could be done it would be a nice museum piece and fodder for "what if"
>
>
>
As shown, targets for that kind of vehicle would be troops. A Puckle gun, with extra cylinders, would work. In DaVinci's day breech loaded man killers were common, and simpler than a Puckle. So six of one, half dozen of the other...etc.
>
>
>
Boiler pressure being low in the 1860s era, it would depend on the gearing, a lot. And they would be dead slow and have problems on anything short of hard surflace. Just as the slow underpowered ww1 tanks had a lot of trouble going cross country, horrendous breakdown rate.
Last edited:
>
>
>
Crimean war was mostly a siege, nobody at the time thought they needed an assault gun. And as self propelled guns those tractors would have been a big target for some very hefty artillery. As they found out in ww1, there's no way to be shot proof and still be mobile.
frlmerrin
Banned
The Megatherium War Horse was able to cross rough and boggy ground and pull a large load, it may not have been a tank and it certainly could not cross large trenches and field fortifications but it certainly seems to have been the basis of something that could have become a tank. It also strongly suggests that your assertion about steam pressure is wrong and whatever pressures were available in Britain in the 1850s were sufficient to start developing a steam tank.
Cugnot's Chariot à Feu if 'revresed' (with the engine at the rear) indeed suggests exciting (if unrealistic?) possibilities.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfuwyt_le-fardier-de-cugnot-dans-les-rues-de-paris_tech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ul8RHwBpM4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4A5ZNjisRM
It all depends on the terrain. A "tank" may have been especially effective during sieges such as the Siege of Vicksburg, which took place in the flat territory of Mississippi and also utilized trench warfare to some extent. In hilly areas, such as Maryland and Virginia, a nonrail vehicle powered by the steam engines of the area would be impractical.
>
>
>
Any idea of the speed of this machine? WW1 UK tanks ran at about two miles an hour (about the same speed as oxen) and were easy targets for artillery but were still considered adequate.
Last edited:
>Didn't they get some from the Draka?
>
>
Weren't the Draka vehicles just steam armored cars? Even the H.G. Wells land ironclads were more centipede-like, multi-wheeled boxes (rather like the German eight wheel scout cars).
Hypothetically what do you think “tanks” would have been called during this period? As we know the word “tank” actually came from the british code word “water tanks” to describe the new machines.
frlmerrin
Banned
I always thought Desmond would be a nice name for something slow and a bit thick. Brunhilde would be pretty cool to as would St Jude if the armour was very thin.
>
>
>
War car. Locomotive or mobile (gun) battery. Steam or rolling fort. Land ironclad.
frlmerrin
Banned
No idea at all. As the thing was built before the Locomotive act of 1861 and well before the Flag Act of 1861 there are not going to be any artificial restrictions on its speed. If I had to guess I would say somewhere between 2-6 mph on a contemporary, non-macadamised road.
The artillery or WWI was two or three generations more advanced that used in the ACW. It is unlikely ACW guns would be able to hit the Megatherium War Horse at range unless it was traveling straight towards them. ACW field artillery used black powder, did not have recoil compensation, most guns did not have a traverse, or sights. To the best of my knowledge the ACW artillerists had no way of accounting for forward motion of the target on land*, neither could they estimate range against a moving target. In WWI they have guns which use cordite (so less black smoke), recoil compensation, some have a traverse and they have sights (and the Germans use AOPs and indirect fire). They have ways of estimating target speed and stadiametric range finders. It is much easier to hit a slow moving target with WWI hardware than ACW hardware.
Lets think about Desmond the SPG for a moment (a tank really is a step too far). The obvious way to do it is to couple a gun car to the front of a traction engine. If you have the technology you might want to put the steering gear on the gun car even if you steer from the engine. Desmod probably has 5/8" iron around the gun car to protect its crew from rifle-musket fire. There is no need to put any around the boiler/fire box as it is made of much thicker iron. Then you put a decent sized gun on it big enough to counter fire 6/9/12 lb field batteries from well beyond their range. Ideally you put the gun on a pivot. A 40 lb Armstrong would be perfect but neither side had them in the ACW so it would have to be a medium sized rifle. Nothing too big, that would be too heavy, nothing too small or it won't have the range and destructive power. What we need is a Goldilocks gun.
I suspect the best use of such a gun would be in a counter fire battery as discussed, in which case you would probably defend Desmond from infantry attack with mounted infantry. Alternatively you could use it against field fortifications.
As only the British are capable of building a Desmond it is not likely that the Confederacy could smuggle many of these monsters trough the blockade the Union can buy them openly and could deploy optimal batteries of 3-4 Desmonds.
The Confedrates did have one gun that could probably hit and kill a Desmond, the British Whitworth it has some useful sights and it can fire an AP round.
*When firing from a fortress at a warship there were methods but they were not good methods but you can't use them on land.